New Poll: Americans Prefer House Approach on Immigration

U.S. Newswire ^ | 5-3-2006 | Steven Camarota

[nckerr]

WASHINGTON, May 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (i.e., avoiding the words "amnesty" or "illegal alien"), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives' enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies. Complete results are on line at:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2006/2006poll.html.

-- On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.

-- While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, only 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.

-- When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or very good idea when told that it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement, while not increasing legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.

-- Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

-- When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, though not as much as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.

-- There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself. Exceptions included Hispanics, 62 percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea, and the most liberal voters (progressives), 54 percent of whom approved of it.

-- When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations, while 56 percent want the House approach.

-- But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach 64 percent to 30 percent.

-- One reason the public does not like legalization is that they are skeptical of the need for illegal-immigrant labor. An overwhelming majority of 77 percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs.

-- Another reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that 73 percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals.

-- The public also does not accept the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: 71 percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," while only 19 percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws.

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan research organization which examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

[11th_VA]

El Bumpo !!!!

[Torie]

No system is foolproof. But the issue is just how effective it will be. Some will always slip through the cracks. If the number is small, the system works, at least for government work.

[SCHROLL]

works in some cases with the credit bureau, but the SS commission has the data on who the number was originally issued to now don't they? I'm beginning to think you just want something to gripe about rather than do something.

[griffin]

bttt

[sinkspur]

works in some cases with the credit bureau, but the SS commission has the data on who the number was originally issued to now don't they? I'm beginning to think you just want something to gripe about rather than do something.

And I know you have no idea how some of the handlers have circumvented the present system.

[griffin]

John Kerry? That you!?

How about catch'em once, brand them and deport'em.

Catch an illegal brand and execute them. Guaranteed that'll stop the wave. Then you don't need to worry about your 1 dimensional thought derived manpower problem no more....sound gud??

[Vigilanteman]

Here's a little experiment I tried in 1979. When I registered at the state job service office (for work, not benefits), I "accidently" mixed up a few digits on my social security number. It took them all of five minutes to find out that number belonged to someone else.

I apologized and gave them the right number before the process continued.

Given that this was 1979 technology, just how hard do you think it would be to ferret out a false or stolen social security number within, say, the first 30 days of hiring?

[okiecon]

Fining employers sounds easy in principle, but is extremely difficult in practice. The prosecution must prove that the employer KNOWINGLY hired an illegal alien, and that means proving a specific state of mind--and that is almost impossible absent an employer confessing.

I must disagree, knowledge can be proven through circumstantial evidence. Employers would have to be willing to pay the lawyers to fight, many would decide to just pay the government. Once the price of fighting the battles is above the price advantage of hiring illegals, no more hiring illegals.

[Vigilanteman]

and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

I figured 40%, not over half.

Hispanics do include Cubans. It is not clear if illegal aliens were included in the poll. If so, it could be a lot higher than 53% among legal Hispanics and U.S. citizens of Hispanic background.

[okiecon]

The law requires that the prosecution prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the employer knowingly hired illegal aliens.

That is an effectively impossible standard to meet.

This the worst argument I have heard in a long time, if proving knowledge was effectively impossible, then convicting on a drug crime, for example, would be impossible.

http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:62146776&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19a%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=

Read the part about willful blindness, that would apply to a lot of contractors.

[no dems]

Tancredo '08. "PUTTING AMERICA FIRST"

[SCHROLL]

yet you do? I was in the credit business for almost 20 years and know how credit reports are flagged. they get their info from the consumer and not the SS Commission. If they can do it without any input from the SS Commission imagine what actually having the info as to name and date of birth to go along with the SS number would yield you in ferreting out the illegals. Nah, as I suspected, you'd rather have the issue than a solution.

[eazdzit]

You posted: "Well, passing nothing would be better than passing a guestamnesty bill. That would be impossible to undo later. (ie., after the 2006 elections) "

Agreed. However a couple of changes in current law and a lot of changes in enforcement would do wonders.

Nearly every infringement of immigration law by an employer is already a felony.

As Torie pointed out it is the fault of the crooked politicians that the system is doing so badly. All one has to do is look at the drop in arrests since Bush took office to see where the problem is sourced.

Excerpt From Here:

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,

encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime.

:)Easy Does It:)

[Serenissima Venezia]

I agree - I am still hoping for some kind of enforcement-only bill.

[eazdzit]

no dems Can I use Putting America 1st in my Tag line.

John would it be possible to allow a tag line in the To area by preceding it with a special character that you could use to override your screen name edit routine.

It would be extremely useful and cut down on a lot of spam posting because a poster would be able to broadcast with his 'TO FIELD" tag line.

For instance this idea that no dems has about PUTTING AMERICA FIRST for a slogan is great. If he could broadcast it in his "TO FIELD" Everybody would see it on the browse page without having to bring up the post itself.

:)Easy Does It:)

[Don W]

This (and most Zogby's) poll is about as accurate as reading chicken entrails.

I am a REGULAR Zogby participant, yet even though I always state that I am NOT a US citizen, their poll asks me questions about how I HAVE voted, or will vote in US elections.

If this poll is reliable, I'm the Pope.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

How many illegal aliens do you propose to incarcerate?

~~~~~~~~~

The number jailed would most likely be around 25% about 3 million or so. Couple that number with cutting off social services to illegals and you will have mass self-deportation. If you put the ones jailed in chain gang camps like Dana Rohrabacher suggested last month and rent them out to the whining farmers you make a profit from them to pay back some of what they’ve sucked out of the economy.

3 million people in chain gang camps can harvest all the lettuce, berries, whatever, and make enough profit to offset some of the cost of running the rest of the prison system.

[Don W]

There are a large number of islands in the Aleutian chain that could quite easily contain these folks. Give them the materiel to construct their own prison, OR deportation, and see which way they go.

Freedom of choice, even in punishment. WOO-HOO!

[jackbenimble]

Looks like those marches didn't do all that much good.

The data for this poll was gathered before the Uno de Mayo fiasco. The results would be even more skewed towards enforcement if they redid the poll today. Frankly I hope the Hispanics have another riot on Stinko de Mayo.

[nicmarlo]

Well....let's just say the propaganda doesn't seem to be working so well. : )